|
It was reported during an unspecified procedure that while using a performer mullins guiding sheath the physician felt the sheath was bent however he still attempted to use it.During insertion, the hub separated.Another device from the same lot was pulled off the shelf and was visibly noted to be bent.The device was removed from the packaging and during examination, the hub easily separated.A third device was then used to complete the procedure.There were no reported adverse effects on the patient due to this occurrence.
|
|
Investigation - evaluation: a review of the complaint history, drawings, dimensional verification, device history record, documentation, instructions for use (ifu), manufacturing instructions, quality control, and visual inspection of the returned device was conducted during the investigation.The sheaths of the two performer mullins guiding sheath were not returned.Two dilators were returned with both hubs separated.Three kinks were present in each dilator shaft.Flare for both the devices were measured.Device #1: flare out of round.Wide diameter = 6.5mm, narrow diameter = 5.4 mm.Device#2: flare out of round.Wide diameter = 6.2mm, narrow diameter = 5.2 mm.The i.D of the connector cap accepted a maximum pin gauge of 0.196" whereas the maximum pin gauge that it is supposed to accept is 0.194".Since, the devices appeared to be damaged before the physician could use it, we cannot confirm whether the device was built out of specification.A document-based investigation was performed.There is no evidence to suggest the finished product was not made to specifications.Review of the device history record of the finished product shows no nonconforming events that would contribute to this failure mode.There were no other reported complaints for this lot number.Based on the available information, it is likely that the device got damaged during shipping as the physician noticed the bent on the sheath before the procedure however the physician is instructed to inspected the product to ensure no damage has occurred.Therefore it is feasible to suggest two root causes of this failure: (1) package handling related and (2) it should also be noted that the user should not have attempted to use a defective device that was noticed before patient contact.Per the quality engineering risk assessment, no further action is required.Appropriate personnel have been notified and monitoring will continue to be performed for similar complaints.
|